I do not see any difference between that play and the Dez play in 2014 *merged*

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,948
Reaction score
16,252
Blandino wasn't even looking at the lunge.

He said he looked at the reach, because he had to. He'd already said in previous explanations that a reach to break the plane established the player as a runner, because it was a football move.

Not to mention the fact that he ignored the other football moves, of course.

Don't know what you mean. Blandino was directly asked about Dez' intended lunge. He also answered the question about Dez' elbow on the ground. He didn't ignore anything. He wasn't asked. You take issue that he didn't answer what he wasn't asked? Okay.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,948
Reaction score
16,252
When Pereira says they got off track, what do you think he was referring to?

He states it in the video blindfaith posted and in the article you keep posting and supposing to say different things each time when the text says things completely different. He said since the rule has been tinkered with "since 1999." Take your pick as to what that means in all those years. What I (or you) think doesn't matter. Produce a quote where he's more specific. A complete quote.
 
Last edited:

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,047
Reaction score
2,519
As Percy and I have been trying to explain to you guys since the darn play happened, you are inferring something that is not explicit in the rules. In 2014 a catch was control, two feet, and a move or time to make a move that is the rule that turns a receiver into a runner. Item one is a subsection of the catch rule. That means that, prior to the Dez fiasco, that going to the ground required control to the ground if you were still a receiver. Do you see the difference? You complete the catch process you are a runner, and you don't become a runner under the going to the ground subsection which is why you need to control it through the ground.

To answer your question, and this is coming from 25 plus years officiating multiple sports, that rule books rarely explicitly spell out everything, and for those who don't officiate that leads to confusion. Officials have the rules, camps, clinics, points of emphasis, and evaluations that hone in those rules. The case book is a supplement to the rule book and it is used to fill in those holes, and guide officials to the correct interpretation of the rules. Even then the case book can't illustrate every possible scenario and in many cases for a play to make the case book means somewhere, sometime, an official blew the call under those conditions. Hoofbite correctly pointed out that the casebook play within this thread was the Victor Cruz catch against us in 2013.

In 2014 a football move turned a falling player into a runner, those case plays are clear, and Blandino and Steretore blew it. Ironically the article you shared in an earlier post agrees with almost everything said by Percy, Mr. C, and me throughout this thread and all previous ones. The rule in 2014 was not applied correctly and everything that the NFL has done since was to retroactively make it seem correct. In 2015 they eliminated a football move ending going to the ground, by requiring the receiver to remain upright and become a runner before they go to the ground, that did not exist before 2015 in any fashion. It was not a clarification like Blandino lied about, it was a brand new rule to cover up the mistake that was made in GB. Everything they have done from 2015 until Pereria spoke recently, has been to further propagate the illusion that going to the ground had always trumped the catch process.

Basically what we have is a two or three time a season play happened in a big game and the NFL freaked out and tried to fix a rule that did not need to be fixed, and instead of dealing with it correctly they set in motion a confusing, poorly written, hodge-podge of stupidity that got worse with each passing change. But make no mistake, the spirit and intent of that rule was not to trump the catch process, it was designed to officiate plays where a receiver could not become a runner. Blandino and Steretore misapplied it, Pereria having mentored Blandino, backed it publicly and in 2015 to today was a concerted effort to cover up that mistake in GB. All of the evidence is there to establish that as a fact.

How many times does the dang rule book need to be quoted until you get it?

1. Possess ball
2. Two feet down
3. Make move common

If while doing any of the above the player is going to the ground they have to maintain control through contacting the ground.

Do you agree that is the rule? Simple question.

By the time Dez got his second foot down he was already going to the ground. Thus he needed to maintain possession through contacting the ground.

I'm done with this. Go argue with Pereira or the NFL or any other actual NFL official. I know what it feels like trying to talk to flat earthers now.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,948
Reaction score
16,252
Oh it was most definitely a thing in 2014. But it was based on an act that an official could see -- not a player's body position.

Wasn't based a player's body position either. Again, go to the case rule that was in the 2014 and 2015 rulebook. If that's an example of a player completing the process of a catch while falling then they could do it in 2014 AND in 2015, right? There's no getting around that. And it means that nothing changed from 2014 to 2015 like you are attempting to shoehorn with the rule language.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
That's what I figured. Because it's not in the rules. That's kinda what rulebooks are for.
When interviewed after the play, Blandino said he "absolutely" looked for a football move that either happened or not while Dez was falling.

That's kinda what interviews are for.

The casebooks show specific examples of football moves occurring while the player is going to the ground.

That's kinda what casebooks are for.

Blandino's previous explanations of similar plays prior to 2015 make no mention of a player needing to be upright in order to complete the catch process.

That's kinda what explanations are for.
 

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,047
Reaction score
2,519
Broke my promise to drop out, couldn't leave you hanging, but it is seriously no use. In a court of law if we presented this evidence against theirs the jury would be out about 30 seconds before they came back saying it was a catch. They are never going to admit they are wrong.

Yeah, because obviously a guy with 100 years of rec officiating under his belt knows more about the NFL rules and how they should be officiated then the actual people who have or are currently officiating them.
 

blindzebra

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,557
Reaction score
4,446
Gee, what a change in Blindfaith's tone...makes you wonder how a few posts ago there was a rational question, that got a rational and then I get a like that one. Hey mods, you might want to check IP's lol
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,948
Reaction score
16,252
Then explain why it hasn't been there since 2015? Pretty simple explanation. If it did not fit in 2014 like you claim, how does it work with the new rule in 2015? It doesn't, in their rush to make their mistake seem correct, they forgot to edit it from the 2015 case book.

Right. So CONSPIRACY! makes an appearance again. Are you even serious with this? An organization teeming with lawyers "forgot" to remove a rule that would have properly covered up their "goof." Goodness, man.
 

blindzebra

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,557
Reaction score
4,446
Yeah, because obviously a guy with 100 years of rec officiating under his belt knows more about the NFL rules and how they should be officiated then the actual people who have or are currently officiating them.
25 years including state championships and national tournaments, what is your experience officiating?
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,576
Reaction score
11,172
Also, it wasn’t.

It was satisfied by him moving the ball from his shoulder and two hands on the right side of his body to his his left hand solely(on his left side).

From the 2014 rule book: maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).


I feel it reasonable to assume he could have pitched the ball. That is, he had time and the ability if he wanted when he moved to ball into one hand.

Read the play again. He was going to the ground prior to getting his 2nd foot down. Even if your belief that A and B automatically satisfy C was correct - which it isn't, there'd be no point in having C if that was the case - he didn't satisfy the requirement of having 2 feet down before going to the ground. Under no circumstance would time have been satisfied before he was going to the ground. Not according to the rule as it is written, and certainly not according to your misguided interpretation.
 

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,047
Reaction score
2,519
When interviewed after the play, Blandino said he "absolutely" looked for a football move that either happened or not while Dez was falling.

That's kinda what interviews are for.

The casebooks show specific examples of football moves occurring while the player is going to the ground.

That's kinda what casebooks are for.

Blandino's previous explanations of similar plays prior to 2015 make no mention of a player needing to be upright in order to complete the catch process.

That's kinda what explanations are for.

You still haven't provided the rule.

Do I agree there was confusion around the rule? Yes. Do I think Blandino made things worse with his incorrect explanations? Yes.
Do I think the rule is badly written? Yes.

Has Periera back tracked? Possibly. You sometimes quote things either out of context or embellished to fit your agenda. But he clearly now believes it was the right call.
 

blindzebra

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,557
Reaction score
4,446
Right. So CONSPIRACY! makes an appearance again. Are you even serious with this? An organization teeming with lawyers "forgot" to remove a rule that would have properly covered up their "goof." Goodness, man.
An organization that hired a comedian with no officiating experience to head up their officiating. An organization that puts a life-long NY Giants fan in charge of conduct investigations. An organization that all those lawyers that can't figure out a way to correctly hand out punishment...yeah they are beyond reproach.
 

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,047
Reaction score
2,519
Gee, what a change in Blindfaith's tone...makes you wonder how a few posts ago there was a rational question, that got a rational and then I get a like that one. Hey mods, you might want to check IP's lol

I'm just tired.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,948
Reaction score
16,252
You sometimes quote things either out of context or embellished to fit your agenda.

Oh, that has definitely been the trend if you'd been following all the recent debates on this play the past month or so. TMZ-esque suppositions, incomplete quotes, refusals to answer questions.
 

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,047
Reaction score
2,519
25 years including state championships and national tournaments, what is your experience officiating?

None. But I do know how to read. And I've spent the last 20 years reading, understanding, defining and implementing complex business processes. My job is to understand intent and translate that to actual and measurable processes.
 
Top